Context: Infineon Technologies’ gallium nitride (GaN) patent dispute against China’s Innoscience Suzhou Technology Holding Co., Ltd. (Innoscience) initially started in the Northern District of California (July 24, 2024 ip fray article) and also made its way to Germany, where the Munich I Regional Court granted Infineon an ex parte preliminary injunction (June 16, 2024 ip fray article). The German semiconductor maker’s campaign also included a complaint over the same patents in the United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC). In April, however, it withdrew one of the four patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 8,264,003 (“Merged cascode transistor”), as well as one claim from U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481 (“Electronic component and switch circuit”). Meanwhile, in a separate case in the ITC, Finnish wearable start-up Oura filed a complaint against three rivals in March 2024 – Ultrahuman, RingConn, and Circular – for the infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,868,178 (“Wearable computing device”), related to the Oura Ring form factor and Oura App.
What’s new: In Oura v Ultrahuman, the ITC’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Doris Johnson Hines has issued a favorable initial determination for Oura, finding that all of the petitioner’s patent claims were valid and that Ultraman and RingConn undertook a list of infringements and “dishonest tactics” (April 30, 2025 Oura press release). Oura has meanwhile settled with Circular. And, separately, Innoscience has filed a motion to withdraw all the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,686,562 (“Refractory metal nitride capped electrical contact and method for fabricating same”) asserted against Innoscience, leaving only two patents in the ITC’s overall investigation.
Direct impact and wider ramifications: Infineon’s decision to drop two patents may indicate that there were serious challenges over the validity or infringement of those patents. Further, the initial determination in Oura v Ultrahuman is subject to review by the full commission in the coming months. If it makes a similar determination to this initial decision, Ultrahuman could face an import ban on its rings in the U.S., which could be detrimental to its business there (the U.S. is its biggest (30%) and one of the company’s fastest-growing markets for biometric wearables (January 2, 2024 Business Telegraph article)).
In its petition in March 2024, Oura claimed that Ultrahuman was funded in part by a sovereign wealth fund, supported by an investor who gained access to confidential and proprietary information on the Oura Ring in or around December of 2021. It also alleged that the Ultrahuman Ring uses the same durable titanium with non-allergenic and non-metallic inner moulding that is used in the Oura Ring.
The ITC ALJ’s initial determination found that both Ultrahuman and RingConn’s products infringe every element of every asserted claim of Oura’s patent, and that Ultrahuman falsified evidence of a manufacturing facility in Texas, making Oura the only participant to bring forward a credible witness.
In a statement last week, Oura said it was “happy” with the initial determination, which it said validates its position and the strength of its U.S. patents. The company is “optimistic” that the full Commission will make a similar determination, it added.
RingConn was founded in 2010 and is based in Shenzhen. Like Ultrahuman, which was founded in Bangalore in 2019, it develops health tracking and monitoring devices (such as fitness rings). Ultrahuman stated:
“We respectfully but firmly disagree with the recent initial determination and remain confident in our position. Our fast-scaling Texas facility is set to cover 100% of U.S. demand within the next 2-3 months, underscoring our commitment to domestic operations and customer-first innovation.”
Counsel
Infineon is being represented by a duo at Turner Boyd Seraphine LLP: Karen I. Boyd and Megan Whyman Olesek, as well as Wolf Greenfield’s Gregory F. Corbett, Charles T. Steenburg, Bryan S. Conley, Jie Xiang, Samuel L. Doskocil, Libbie A. DiMarco, John W. McGrath, Eric J. Rutt, and Suresh S. Rav.
Meanwhile, Innoscience is being represented by a team at Finnegan: Sneha Nyshadham, Forrest A. Jones, and Lionel M. Lavenue.
Oura was represented by ArentFox Schiff LLP’s Janine A. Carlan, Jasjit S. Vidwan (now Mayer Brown), Taniel E. Anderson, Richard J. Berman, Bradford C. Frese, Michael J. Baldwin, Margherita A. Capolino, Christopher S. Schultz, Heather M. Zimmer, Matthew T. Wilkerson, and Ehsun Forghany.
Ultrahuman was represented by a team at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP: John T. Moehringer, Danielle V. Tully, Michael B. Powell, John T. Augelli, Catherine N. Taylor, Michael A. Russo, and Cameron A. Kasanzew. It was also represented by Michael J. Schwartz, Timothy J. Murphy, David L. Atallah, Alex Szypa, and Brian S. Tobin at Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, PC.
RingConn was represented by Jones Day’s Robert M. Breetz, Ryan B. McCrum, Emily C. Towers, Luke B. Cipolla, Owen T. Carpenter, Matthew J. Hertko, and Haifeng Huang.
ITC wins
Oura and Innoscience have each emerged victorious in recent ITC cases involving patents related to smart ring and GaN technologies, respectively.
In March, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment brought by Samsung against Oura, stating that its Galaxy Ring does not infringe several of Oura’s patents (March 27, 2025 ip fray article). Samsung confirmed in April that it did not intend to file an amended complaint (PDF). However, that does not rule out the possibility that Samsung could file an appeal in the Federal Circuit.
Innoscience was also successful in defending a complaint brought against it in the ITC by Efficient Power Conversion over four patents related to certain gallium nitride (GaN) technology (March 20, 2025 ip fray article). In that case, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) invalidated the only remaining patent in the ITC’s case in March.